Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I gave an exam 2 months ago and the question paper contains the problem:

Given that there are 168 primes below 1000. Then the sum of all primes below 1000 is

(a) 11555 (b) 76127 (c) 57298 (d) 81722

My attempt to solve it: We know that below 1000 there are 167 odd primes and 1 even prime (2), so the sum has to be odd, leaving only the first two numbers. Then I tried to use the formula "Every prime can be written in of the form (6n-1),(6n+1) except 2 and 3.", but I got stuck at that.

share|cite|improve this question
2  
Only (b) is really plausible on size. I'd expect the average size to be in the 400-500 area, but definitely less than 500. Then you have eliminated (c) and (d) on parity anyway. – Joffan yesterday
    
Could you specify what kind of calculator/computer you are allowed to rely on for an answer? – user1717828 17 hours ago
1  
Just by "multiple-choice psychology" I expect both obviously wrong answers (c) and (d) to be somehow close to (and ideally on both sides of) the correct answer. This is the case only if (b) is the correct answer. – Curd 15 hours ago
    
@Curd, that is not a proof, that is an educated guess or value judgment, based on "psychology". I agree with your guess, but my agreement does not make it a proof. But still an interesting answer/comment :) – SlimsGhost 14 hours ago
    
@SlimsGhost: I know what a mathematical proof looks like, but nobody was asking for a proof. I'm just making fun of multiple-choice tests. – Curd 11 hours ago
up vote 21 down vote accepted

We have to decide among $\text{(A)}$ and $\text{(B)}$. Note that the $26$th prime is $101$. This implies that if $p_{n}$ denotes the $n$ th prime, then $$\sum_{n=1}^{168}p_{n} = \sum_{n=1}^{25}p_{n}+\sum_{n=26}^{168} p_{n} > \sum_{n=26}^{168} 101 =101 \times 143=14443 >\text{(A)}=11555$$

The answer is thus $\text{(B)}$, $76127$. The answer can be confirmed through direct calculation or can be verfied here.

share|cite|improve this answer
3  
Why did you choose the 26th prime here? Or is it just arbitrary? – MarioDS 17 hours ago
13  
It is somewhat commonly known piece of a trivia - there are 25 primes below 100 and the primes below 25 sum to 100. – Jon Claus 17 hours ago
1  
@MarioDS It is as Jon Claus said; many people memorized it, so I was able to answer it quickly. – S.C.B. 16 hours ago

The sum of the first 168 positive integers is $\frac{168^2+168}{2}=14196$, which is greater than answer (a). The sum of the first 168 primes must be even greater than that.

share|cite|improve this answer

you just have to decide between $11555$ and $76127$.

Notice that the first implies the average prime under $1000$ is $11555/168<69$. Which is clearly false.

share|cite|improve this answer
3  
To clarify, note that there are only 19 primes under 69 and the remaining 149 primes are larger. Hence there is no way to arrive at this average. – user1952500 22 hours ago
    
Or the other way round, the average of the primes <1000 should be below 500, since the density decreases. So the sum should be below 168*500 = 84000. That leaves only 76127. – Florian F 20 hours ago
    
@FlorianF Well… no, not really. 11,555 is obviously wrong, but it is definitely below 84,000. – Janus Bahs Jacquet 13 hours ago

There are $168$ primes with the first one equal to $2$ the rest $\ge 2k-1$ for $k=2,3,4,...,168$. So their sum is at least $168^2+1=28 225$.

share|cite|improve this answer
    
(a) would mean that the average prime is $<70$, which is horrendously implausible, for me good enough to pick (b) instead. - But this answer is the formal reason why it's implausible – Hagen von Eitzen 11 hours ago

I just wanted to carry forward your observation about "Every prime can be written in of the form $(6n-1),(6n+1)$ except $2$ & $3$".

We can quickly get a minimum sum out of this. Assume that the $166$ primes not $2$ or $3$ are the smallest such numbers obeying the above; then $83$ are $6k{-}1$, $83$ are $6k{+}1$ and the minimum bound total is $83$ terms of $12k$, which is $12\cdot 84 \cdot 83 /2 = 504\cdot 83 = 41832$ - and we can decoratively add the $2$ and $3$ to get $41837$. This is more than big enough to eliminate option (a) as required.

share|cite|improve this answer
2  
The only problem here is that I feel cheated at the too-obvious wrongness of option (a) - it could've been say 41555 instead of 11555 :-) – Joffan 16 hours ago
1  
Interestingly, 41837 isn't that far away from 76127. – gnasher729 8 hours ago
1  
Using that all primes > 7 are 30k ± 1, 7, 11, 13, the lower bound is 51,677. – gnasher729 8 hours ago

Your analysis that the answer must be (a) or (b) is convincing. Considering that (a) and (b) are much different, just about any simplistic method to approximate the sum of all primes should tell which is the right answer. For example, the sum of all numbers less than 1000 is about 500,000. So, 168/1000*500,000 or 84,000 should be in the right ballpark. 76127 is the right answer, by this reasoning.

share|cite|improve this answer
    
+1, hope tomorrow is better. – Jorge Fernández Hidalgo yesterday
    
Yup you got me to upvote. A comparison test, see another answer, easily limits the size of the "ballpark" thus settling the question. – Oscar Lanzi yesterday
2  
I edited out the meta-commentary (as we call it... well, at least as I call it) because we try to stay away from that stuff on SE. Anyway, I think you've got nothing to worry about. This method is legit, because the four answer choices are separated by enough to easily distinguish between them. – David Z yesterday

Primes except for $2$ are all odd, and you have $168$ distinct primes, so their sum must be at least $2 + \sum_{k=2}^{168} (2k-1) = 2 + (168^2-1) > 160^2 = 25600 > 11555$. So option (a) is out and only (b) remains.

share|cite|improve this answer
1  
Of course, the question is so weak that taking the first $168$ positive integers suffices, but it's even easier to get a bound using odd positive integers! – user21820 19 hours ago

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.